Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Here, we are only interested in the second accepted meaning of the term
“referential domain of knowledge”. However, even if two archives which deal with
the same referential domain (in the
first sense
of the term, the intuitive and pre-
analytical sense) have two different visions of it, which manifest themselves in the
form of two different systems of topical structures, each of the two archives may
rely on the same metalanguage of description - and thus on the same meta-lexicon
of conceptual terms - to create its topical structures and its library of descriptive
models. In other words, an archive devoted to literary knowledge, but which does
not use the same models of description as the LHE archives, may nonetheless use
the ASW metalanguage to elaborate its vision of the referential domain in question
in the form of a topical structure or a system of topical structures.
We can clearly see here the advantage of such a metalanguage that, among other
things, not only enables us to take account of a certain degree of
relativity
, a certain
range of visions of the same “given reality”, but can also serve as a
common
resource
for competing design and modeling. Finally, this metalanguage also
enables us (to a certain point) to ensure the translatability and interoperability of the
metadata relating to the content (the subjects) of the audiovisual texts, even if they
relate to working forms which belong to rival libraries of forms.
In addition, even if a referential domain of knowledge (in the
second sense
, see
above) is peculiar to a specific audiovisual archive (or library), a specific topic
structure need not necessarily be so. Thus, if two archives which deal with the
“same” referential domain of knowledge (in the
first sense
) have a different vision
of it (i.e. in the form of a divergent library of models for describing the content), a
given topical structure can be used exactly as it is, or with some local modifications,
in both libraries. Even more generally, a topical structure such as that shown in
Figure 3.2 and which defines the (very general) fact that
(any) civilization refers to
(any) cultural construct
, may be pertinent
for a whole variety of archives
and
libraries, even if they share very few interests and domains of knowledge (in the
first
sense
).
However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the ASW meta-lexicon of
conceptual terms of the objects of analysis ultimately represents a certain
(theoretical) view of the
lifeworld of the social actors and of its mediatization in the
form of a discourse and a text
that the analyst can use to inform his domain of
expertise while adapting it to the appropriate specificities. Thus, like all ontologies,
the vocabulary of conceptual terms which belong to the ASW meta-lexicon
representing the analytical objects in the ASW universe of discourse, is “limited”
threefold:
‒
the vocabulary expresses a certain view of the
analytical objects
which come,
notably (as we shall see later on) from the
socialworld
and its
mediatization
;
